Brown v. Bowen’s Empirical Analysis
794 F.2d 703 · 1986
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 57 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Bunnell v. Sullivan (1991), Clifton v. Chater (1996)
17 federal appellate · 57 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 1601 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 405 (§ 205 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 42 U.S.C. § 423 (§ 223 of the Social Security Act of 1935) · 5 U.S.C. § 557 (Administrative Procedure Act of 1946)
Relies on Richardson v. Perales · Consolidated Edison Co of New York v. National Labor Relations Board · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · Cotter v. Harris · Marcus v. Califano
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) First, if the Secretary finds that an individual is engaged in substantial gainful work, that individual is deemed “not disabled,” despite any medical evidence or other contraindications. Id. §§ 404.-1520(b), 416.920(b); (2) Second, if the Secretary finds that an individual has a “severe” impairment, that individual is deemed “disabled.” Id. §§ 404.1520(b), 416.920(c); (3) Third, if the Secretary finds that an impairment suffered by an individual is one which lasts for the requisite duration, and is listed in the Secretary’s regulations (“the Listing of Impairments”), then the individual is deemed “disabled.” Id. §§ 404.1520(d), 416.920(d); (4) Fourth, if the Secretary finds that an individual who, though suffering from an “impairment,” is capable of performing work that he or she has done in the past, that individual is deemed “not disabled.” Id. §§ 404.1520(e), 416.920(e); and (5) Fifth, if the Secretary finds that an individual who, “based upon his or her age, education, work experience and residual functional capacity (“RFC”), is capable of performing gainful work,” that individual is deemed “not disabled.” Id. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f).”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“determining whether the Secretary's decision that [the claimant] was not disabled is supported by substantial evidence....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Simms v. Sullivan
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.